Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

    we were still able to trade him for a (at the time) valued point guard, expiring contracts, and a 1st-round pick.
    That was a bit of a coup, one of the best deals in the Larry era, and they still had to virtually eat TJ's money for a good chunk of time.

    I agree that any one guy is something you can survive, but you're only going to have 3 guys in the 12-15m range realistically. So this is saying that the team will be Danny, Roy, and West. If you resign Hill for a similar higher than market deal ala Roy then that's pretty much it. You let West go in order to resign Paul George, DC is gone, and your running with those 4 guys. If those guys improve and meet those deals then you are okay, but right now Roy is not at that level. It's more than just "what if he gets hurt, can we salvage an injury decline". JO was an MVP runner at the time of his deal, so you could picture the realistic return. Roy not only must not get injured (true with all players so I ignore it without history) but he must also make serious strides to improve.

    The Pacers didn't win playoff games on Roy's back. He helped just like West, Hill, Paul, DC and Danny helped. If Roy had been "the man" in the playoffs for the Pacers with the game coming down to Paul and David just feeding Danny and Roy ala Rik/Reggie then I'd be down at the BiLF freaking out to have his deal done already. I want him to be that, I've defended him as being on the Rik track, but unfortunately the time to commit to that future has come before we had more definite proof.

    This is the bummer part of it. I want to call that bet and see that 5th card, but the odds in my head are screaming "be careful, this could cost you the game" simply because it puts you in a position of weakness if you are wrong. Not screwed perhaps, but handicapped. Yes, you can dig out of it, but you'll need to parlay a series of other wins together to do so.


    My debating in here is mostly in response to "of course you must or you'll never be a playoff team" reactions. Plenty of teams recover from crap like this to become a different type of playoff team. I would expect more progress from Paul this summer than from Roy, and that means that I can see more overall offense coming from Paul, Danny and West next year. Certainly you can post West all day, so the low post game doesn't go away at all.

    You lose the defense, and that does hurt. That means you need to offset the cost by spending on a one-way defensive guy.



    Honestly I'd rather have Nash's final 3 seasons at $12m because he 100% makes all other offensive weapons dramatically better. Offensive lulls become a thing of the past and weapons like Danny, Paul and West can easily work for regular 20 point nights with that guy passing the ball. Then you just need that rim defense and some boards. To me the ineptitude on offense that led to very sloppy possessions and easy baskets the other way was the team's number 1 fault. To me that's the value of Nash and how he helps the "defense", he makes the other team start by inbounding the ball instead of at the halfcourt line with a 3 on 2.



    I'm torn because I love the idea of building a balanced team, but that means balanced pay to some extent as well. What this group is works well for me, but how they are going to pay for it all...tricky.


    Let me add this too - if they commit to Roy and resign him then I'm getting a Roy jersey because I'm in for that ride. It's either get us there or we all crash together.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-01-2012, 10:51 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      That was a bit of a coup, one of the best deals in the Larry era, and they still had to virtually eat TJ's money for a good chunk of time.

      I agree that any one guy is something you can survive, but you're only going to have 3 guys in the 12-15m range realistically. So this is saying that the team will be Danny, Roy, and West. If you resign Hill for a similar higher than market deal ala Roy then that's pretty much it. You let West go in order to resign Paul George, DC is gone, and your running with those 4 guys. If those guys improve and meet those deals then you are okay, but right now Roy is not at that level. It's more than just "what if he gets hurt, can we salvage an injury decline". JO was an MVP runner at the time of his deal, so you could picture the realistic return. Roy not only must not get injured (true with all players so I ignore it without history) but he must also make serious strides to improve.

      The Pacers didn't win playoff games on Roy's back. He helped just like West, Hill, Paul, DC and Danny helped. If Roy had been "the man" in the playoffs for the Pacers with the game coming down to Paul and David just feeding Danny and Roy ala Rik/Reggie then I'd be down at the BiLF freaking out to have his deal done already. I want him to be that, I've defended him as being on the Rik track, but unfortunately the time to commit to that future has come before we had more definite proof.

      This is the bummer part of it. I want to call that bet and see that 5th card, but the odds in my head are screaming "be careful, this could cost you the game" simply because it puts you in a position of weakness if you are wrong. Not screwed perhaps, but handicapped. Yes, you can dig out of it, but you'll need to parlay a series of other wins together to do so.


      My debating in here is mostly in response to "of course you must or you'll never be a playoff team" reactions. Plenty of teams recover from crap like this to become a different type of playoff team. I would expect more progress from Paul this summer than from Roy, and that means that I can see more overall offense coming from Paul, Danny and West next year. Certainly you can post West all day, so the low post game doesn't go away at all.

      You lose the defense, and that does hurt. That means you need to offset the cost by spending on a one-way defensive guy.



      Honestly I'd rather have Nash's final 3 seasons at $12m because he 100% makes all other offensive weapons dramatically better. Offensive lulls become a thing of the past and weapons like Danny, Paul and West can easily work for regular 20 point nights with that guy passing the ball. Then you just need that rim defense and some boards. To me the ineptitude on offense that led to very sloppy possessions and easy baskets the other way was the team's number 1 fault. To me that's the value of Nash and how he helps the "defense", he makes the other team start by inbounding the ball instead of at the halfcourt line with a 3 on 2.



      I'm torn because I love the idea of building a balanced team, but that means balanced pay to some extent as well. What this group is works well for me, but how they are going to pay for it all...tricky.
      Be honest.... You are just eager to hand over the keys to Miles Plumlee.
      "I’m your favorite player’s favorite player. And it’s not enough for me for him to know that. I want the world to know that." -- Michael Beasley

      Comment


      • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

        It doesn't matter what Hibbert is "leaning" to. I don't know why people are getting so worked up over. He's going to be matched and get his nice contract and we'll get in return an All-Star center.

        Comment


        • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          ...are you in some way arguing that the pacers would have kept afloat if they hadn't paid JO?
          Yes. They wouldn't have been great that next year probably, but we really have no idea what would have happened.

          Let's see, there is 100% NO WAY you can make the playoffs if you lose - Rik, Dale and Jax. 3 of your 5 starters. And then you overpay on injured Bender and low production Croshere.

          I mean is this not exactly the kind of doomsday being predicted if they gave up JO or now Roy? 3 of the 5 starters. Next year - 1st round playoff team. 3rd year they had the best record at the AS break and 2 all-star players.

          Because, you know, there's only one path to the top.



          Really if you don't go get an AI then you can't win. And if you don't sign the top FAs, like Ben G and Chucky V, then you can't win. It's pretty much just one method and that's it.

          Comment


          • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

            Originally posted by Willbo View Post
            Be honest.... You are just eager to hand over the keys to Miles Plumlee.
            ooh boy...you know some of us were starting to forget all about that with this other news going on.

            It doesn't matter what Hibbert is "leaning" to. I don't know why people are getting so worked up over. He's going to be matched and get his nice contract and we'll get in return an All-Star center.
            Yeah, I agree with this. It's day one, it's tons of agent posturing BS and the Pacers can easily match if they feel it's the best option. The team isn't in a bad position per se, and it does save them 1 year on the deal just in case.

            The only issue at all is that Roy is sometimes obviously a guy you give this deal to and sometimes not, and in an obviously disappointing kinda "not" way. The success of this deal if they match it is in Roy's hands. At least we know the deal won't look bad if his effort and attitude have anything to say about it. But his attitude and effort weren't the reasons he had some dud games too.



            Keep in mind that Roy faced Orlando and Miami without Howard or Bosh. An all-star center dominates those series because of this, and Roy did not. He had a 3-11 and a 3-10 game with 8 boards in each of them, both losses to ORL and MIA. He didn't score 20 points in any playoff game. He had a 3-12 with 7 boards vs Chicago last year too.
            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-01-2012, 11:15 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

              Wells just said on WTHR that he doesn't think the Pacers will match.

              Comment


              • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                For comparison, Marc Gasol got 4 years, 58m last off season.

                Comment


                • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  ooh boy...you know some of us were starting to forget all about that with this other news going on.


                  Yeah, I agree with this. It's day one, it's tons of agent posturing BS and the Pacers can easily match if they feel it's the best option. The team isn't in a bad position per se, and it does save them 1 year on the deal just in case.

                  The only issue at all is that Roy is sometimes obviously a guy you give this deal to and sometimes not, and in an obviously disappointing kinda "not" way. The success of this deal if they match it is in Roy's hands. At least we know the deal won't look bad if his effort and attitude have anything to say about it. But his attitude and effort weren't the reasons he had some dud games too.



                  Keep in mind that Roy faced Orlando and Miami without Howard or Bosh. An all-star center dominates those series because of this, and Roy did not. He had a 3-11 and a 3-10 game with 8 boards in each of them, both losses to ORL and MIA. He didn't score 20 points in any playoff game. He had a 3-12 with 7 boards vs Chicago last year too.
                  Yep I agree that Roy was supposed to dominate in the playoffs and he didn't do that, he actually got destroyed by big baby and couldn't do anything against Miami's scrubs.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                    Lose Hibbert, lose me. Plain and simple.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                      Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                      Lose Hibbert, lose me. Plain and simple.
                      Lol why are so many people carrying on if we let him go its not the end of the world geez
                      Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                        Originally posted by Hypnotiq View Post
                        Lol why are so many people carrying on if we let him go its not the end of the world geez
                        If we aren't going to re-sign Roy, it's a tell-tale sign that we aren't committed to being the best we can be, and that would be the worst of all possible situations... this is our climax. If we give up our most important player and All-Star than we aren't going anywhere.

                        This is the end of the three years. This is our summer. Why would we give up our most important player if we can afford him?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                          Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                          Wells just said on WTHR that he doesn't think the Pacers will match.
                          Wells is just good for reporting... don't ask him to think, or share his opinion. - earlier he thought Roy could get 16 mil per in a Max deal... (which is wrong)

                          David Aldridge reported Herb has left the decision to our front office...

                          Since when did Walsh not keep his own player? They wouldn't have been talking the talk about keeping them is a top priority, if they weren't willing to walk the walk and follow through.
                          "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                          Comment


                          • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                            I'm not too concerned right now with Roy or what David Faulk is spouting to the media. This is all negotiation and posturing. In 2 weeks Roy will be in the fold as a Pacer if the FO values having him as their starting center. I'm more concerned about Walsh & Simon all of a sudden wanting to change course with how they build the team.
                            ...Still "flying casual"
                            @roaminggnome74

                            Comment


                            • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                              Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                              If we aren't going to re-sign Roy, it's a tell-tale sign that we aren't committed to being the best we can be, and that would be the worst of all possible situations... this is our climax. If we give up our most important player and All-Star than we aren't going anywhere.

                              This is the end of the three years. This is our summer. Why would we give up our most important player if we can afford him?
                              I would hope our belligerence was coupled with a plan.
                              "I’m your favorite player’s favorite player. And it’s not enough for me for him to know that. I want the world to know that." -- Michael Beasley

                              Comment


                              • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                                The thing is nowadays the positions of power have changed... So we don't really know.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X